ANSWER----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page 1 of 7

REPUBIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
EIGHT (8th) JUDICIAL REGION
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
_______, ________
XXX, substituted
_______________
by ZZZ,
WITH DAMAGES
Plaintiff,

CIVIL CASE NO.

For: FORCIBLE ENTRY

-versusYYY,
Defendant.
x-------------------------------x

ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM

DEFENDANT, thru counsel and before this Honorable
Court in answer to the complaint most respectfully alleges,
that:
1. He admits pars. (1) and (2) of the complaint;
2. He denies par. (3) of the complaint the truth of the matter
being those
pleaded in the following special affirmative defense.
Specifically, ZZZ should have been impleaded as
plaintiff considering that he appears to be the
registered owner of Lot No. 11336 as shown in OCT
No. P-48059 attached to the complaint;
3. He denies pars. (4), (5) and (6) of the complaint the truth of
the matter
being those pleaded of the following special
affirmative defenses;
4. He denies pars. (7) and (8) of the complaint. There was
neither a demand
to vacate nor earnest efforts towards conciliation of
the parties before the Lupon to explore the possibly
of having the dispute settled amicably considering
that ZZZ is a close kin of the defendant;

ANSWER----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page 2 of 7

5. He denies par. (9) of the complaint. If ever it is true that

plaintiff incurred
the expenses recited in said paragraph, it is just
fitting that she should shoulder that financial burden
attendant to this complaint as she knows for a fact
that defendant has the legal right to occupy and
remain in Lot 11336;
6. He denies par. (10) of the complaint. Defendant should not
be required to
pay rental on the land in his possession as he is
exercising dominical right
thereon;
7. He denies par. (11) of the complaint. Since defendants
occupation of a
portion of Lot 11336 is valid and legal, there is no
reason for plaintiff to suffer mental anguish or
wounded feelings. Besides, in forcible entry cases,
claim for damages of this nature is prescribed;
8. AND BY WAY OF SPECIAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, answering
defendant
incorporates by reference the foregoing averments
as may be material
and relevant hereto and most respectfully states
that:
9. The land in question, (Lot 11336) together with adjoining Lot
No. 11338,
are primitively owned by Lucila Bactol and Domingo
Javines, both deceased. Lucila was married to
Agustin dela Pea (deceased), and begot eight (8)
children with him, namely; Eriberto dela Pea, Tomas
dela Pea, Vicenta dela Pea-Faller, Modesta dela
Pea-Canamaque, Crispulo dela Pea, Maria dela
Pea-Gajardo, Jose dela Pea and Rosela dela Pea.
Defendant and ZZZ are two (2) of the grandchildren
of whom were Leon, father of defendant, and Onofre,
father of ZZZ;
10.
Upon revision, both lots were consolidated in the
name of Lucias
daughter, Rosela dela Pea under TD No. 9200 copy
attached as Annex 1,

ANSWER----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page 3 of 7

who died without issue on February 7, 1968 thereby

leaving as heirs to her lands her seven (7) siblings.
Later, it was divided into two (2) lots, 11336 and lot
11338 declared in the name of Resela dela Pea
under TD No. 2002-11005-00235 and TD No. 200211005-00236 copies appended as Annexes 2 and 3;
11.
Upon the death of rosella dela Pea, or in 1968,
actual possession of both
lots were transferred to her nephew Leon dela Pea,
son of Crispulo. As possessor with hereditary right,
Leon established his residence on Lot 11336 where
all his children, two (2) of whom are Reynaldo and
herein defendant, YYY were born and resided. He was
also the survey claimant of a Lot 11336 as shown in
the approved technical description copy attached as
Annex 4. Upon the death of Leon on December 14,
1987, possession was transferred to his children with
Reynaldo dela Pea residing in the ancestral home.
Their possession is open and continues to the
present, and have been religiously paying realty
taxes due thereon one of which is for the year 2004
per OR No. 0077775 dated January 26, 2004 copy
attached as Annex 5. Defendant constructed his own
house near to, and on the southern portion of, the
house of Reynaldo. Since then to the present, YYY,
like his brother Reynaldo, remained on Lot 11336;
12.
The surviving heirs of Rosela dela Pea to date, had
not, as yet, effected
partition of Lot 11336/11338 among themselves.
Instead, defendants
cousin Ladislao dela Pea, who is a resident of
Laguna since then to the present, had, thru fraud,
concealment and misrepresentation, caused the
transfer of Lot 11338 I in his name, while for Lot
11336, he caused the execution of an instrument of
conveyance by purported vendors Felixberta
Gajardo, Felisa Gajardo, Igmedia P. Abarca and
Anacita C. Larraga, copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale
is attached as Annex 6. Felixberta is the daughter of
Maria dela Pea-Gajardo, Felisa is the daughter of
Vicenta dela Pea, Igmedia dela Pea is the daughter
of Jose dela Pea while Anacita Larraga is the
successor of Modesta dela Pea-Canamaque. At
most, said vendors represented conveyed only four
(4) of the seven (7) shares, from both Lots 11336 and

ANSWER----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page 4 of 7

11338, thereby leaving undisposed three (3) shares

of Eriberto, Tomas and Crispulo, all surnamed dela
Pea;
13.
Thus, on the basis of the foregoing premises the
issue to be ventilated in
this case, is not possession de facto but possession
de jure, or defendants dominical possession of his
hereditary share of the land, which cannot be
ventilated in this case. The Court therefore did not
acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
complaint;
14.
For another, gleaned from the averments in par. (5)
of the complaint, the
alleged intrusion purportedly occurred sometime
between 1987 to 1997.
Granting argument that the complained of intrusion
was indeed effected in 1997 at the latest, and in the
manner alleged in the complaint, with more reason
that this case for forcible entry, filed only on June 17,
2011 or after the lapse of 14 years, must fail, as it
was beyond the one (1) year prescriptive period
mandated by Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure;
15.
As contra-distinguished from unlawful detainer,
where the prescriptive
period begins to run from the time demand to vacate
is made, the one (1) year prescriptive period for the
filing of forcible entry case commences to run from
the time the complained of intrusion occurred.
Demand to vacate if any, does not stop the running
of the period because the entry is illegal from the
beginning;
16.
The complaint fails to state a cause of action, or that
plaintiff has no cause
of action against defendant. Plaintiff obviously did
not suffer injury, as defendants occupation of the
land is not legally wrong that needs to be vindicated,
instead, it is a right vested upon him by law as one of
the attributed of ownership;
17.
Aside from the defendant, another person, Paulo dela
Pea, was not

ANSWER----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page 5 of 7

impleaded as defendant despite his inclusion as one

of the respondents at the barangay level as
appearing in the Certification to File Action annexed
to the complaint. Paulo is occupying another portion
of the land in question. His father was Simeon dela
Pea, brother of Leon. He is an indispensable party to
this case as his said occupancy is also premised on
claim of ownership. He should be included as
defendant in order to have complete disposition of
the issue ventilated in this case;
18.
The complaint was filed in violation of the
Katarungang Pambarangay Law
as there was no exhaustive conciliation proceedings
between the parties at the Lupon of Brgy. Jugaban,
Carigara, Leyte prior to the issuance of the
Certification to File Action. Likewise, the demand
letter, Annex F to the complaint, appears to have
been addressed to a certain Rolando dela Pea, not
to the defendant;
19.
AND AS COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM defendant
incorporates by
reference the foregoing allegations as may be
relevant hereto and most respectfully states, that;
20.
This suit filed by the plaintiff compelled defendant to
litigate to defend his
dominical right to the property in issue. He retained
the services of the undersigned counsel and agreed
to pay P30, 000.00 for and as attorneys fee, in
addition to P2, 000.00 per hearing as appearance
fee, which plaintiff should be held liable to pay;
21.
In collating the documents necessary for his
defense, as well as
payments of other fees attendants to this case,
defendant spent the sum of P15, 000.00 which
amount should likewise be assessed against the
plaintiff.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully
prayed that after hearing judgment be rendered:

ANSWER----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page 6 of 7

1. Ordering the dismissal of the complaint for lack of

merit;
2. Declaring defendant as a de jure possessor of the
portion of the litigated property;
3. Ordering plaintiff to pay defendant P15, 000.00 a
litigation expenses, and;
4. Ordering plaintiff to pay P30, 000.00 for and as
attorneys fee, in addition to P2, 000.00 per hearing
as appearance fee, and;
5. To pay the costs of suit.
Defendant also prays for such other reliefs and
remedies as may be just and consistent with equity.
Respectfully submitted.
_________, ________ July 8, 2011.

VERIFICATION AND AFFIDAVIT OF NON-FORUM

SHOPPING
I, YYY, of legal age, Filipino, after having been sworn
in accordance with law hereby depose and state that:
1. I am the defendant in the above case, I caused the
preparation of the foregoing Answer with Counterclaim,
have read and understood its contents and that they
are true and correct of my own knowledge and
supported by authentic documents;
2. Further, I hereby certify under oath that I have not filed
any other action or proceeding involving the same issue
and parties before any court, tribunal or agency, that
no other action or proceeding has been filed or is
pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals or agency, and that if I should learn later that
such action or proceeding has been filed or is pending
before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any

ANSWER----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page 7 of 7

other tribunal agency I shall report the fact within five

(5) days from such knowledge to the court, tribunal or
agency where the original pleading or sworn
certification has been filed
IN WITNESS WEHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed
my signature this ____________ at _________, ________,
Philippines.

YYY
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this
______________ at _______, ________, Philippines, Affiant with
proof of identity-Postal ID No. 0102261 issued on July 8, 2011
at ________, _________. I hereby certify that I have personally
examined the affiant and I am fully satisfied that he freely
and knowingly executed the foregoing verification.